Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of London School of Business and Management Ltd

Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of London School of Business and Management Ltd October 2015 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations... 2 Affirmation of action being taken... 2 Theme: Digital Literacy... 3 Financial sustainability, management and governance... 3 About... 3 Explanation of the findings about London School of Business and Management Ltd... 5 1 The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies and/or other awarding organisations... 6 2 Judgement: The quality of student learning opportunities... 19 3 Judgement: The quality of the information about learning opportunities... 42 4 Judgement: The enhancement of student learning opportunities... 45 5 Commentary on the Theme: Digital Literacy... 48 Glossary... 50

About this review This is a report of a Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) conducted by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) at London School of Business and Management Ltd. The review took place from 13 to 15 October 2015 and was conducted by a team of three reviewers, as follows: Dr Glenn Barr Dr Janthia Taylor Miss Mishal Saeed (student reviewer). The main purpose of the review was to investigate the higher education provided by and to make judgements as to whether or not its academic standards and quality meet UK expectations. These expectations are the statements in the UK Quality Code for Higher Education (the Quality Code) 1 setting out what all UK higher education providers expect of themselves and of each other, and what the general public can therefore expect of them. In Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) the QAA review team: makes judgements on - the setting and maintenance of threshold academic standards - the quality of student learning opportunities - the information provided about higher education provision - the enhancement of student learning opportunities provides a commentary on the selected theme makes recommendations identifies features of good practice affirms action that the provider is taking or plans to take. A check is also made on the provider's financial sustainability, management and governance (FSMG) with the aim of giving students reasonable confidence that they should not be at risk of being unable to complete their course as a result of financial failure. In reviewing the review team has also considered a theme selected for particular focus across higher education in England and Northern Ireland. The themes for the academic year 2015-16 are Student Employability, and Digital Literacy, 2 and the provider is required to select, in consultation with student representatives, one of these themes to be explored through the review process. A summary of the findings can be found in the section starting on page 2. Explanations of the findings are given in numbered paragraphs in the section starting on page 5. The QAA website gives more information about QAA and its mission. 3 A dedicated section explains the method for Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers). 4 For an explanation of terms see the glossary at the end of this report. 1 The UK Quality Code for Higher Education is published at: www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code. 2 Higher Education Review themes: www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/publication?pubid=2859. 3 QAA website: www.qaa.ac.uk/about-us. 4 Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers): www.qaa.ac.uk/en/reviewsandreports/pages/educational-oversight-.aspx 1

Key findings QAA's judgements about London School of Business and Management Ltd The QAA review team formed the following judgements about the higher education provision at. The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies and/or other awarding organisations meets UK expectations. The quality of student learning opportunities meets UK expectations. The quality of the information about learning opportunities meets UK expectations. The enhancement of student learning opportunities is commended. Good practice The QAA review team identified the following features of good practice at London School of Business and Management Ltd: the strong governance framework that goes beyond the requirements placed on the School by its awarding bodies and organisations (Expectation A2) the clear strategy and extensive support for improving teaching and learning (Expectation B3) the wide range of effective support mechanisms that enable students to develop their academic and personal potential (Expectation B4) the effective and full integration of the annual monitoring process into corporate governance and the annual resource planning cycle (Expectation B8) the strong strategic approach to enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, which is embedded in organisational structures and processes (Enhancement). Recommendations The QAA review team makes the following recommendations to London School of Business and Management Ltd. By September 2016: fully consult students when developing key strategic and management initiatives that impact on the quality of learning opportunities (Expectation B5) clarify the processes for making complaints and appeals in order to more effectively communicate these to staff and students (Expectation B9) clearly articulate the difference between placement learning opportunities that contribute to the assessment of learning outcomes and those that are intended to enhance employability (Expectation B10). Affirmation of action being taken The QAA review team affirms the following actions that the London School of Business and Management Ltd is already taking to make academic standards secure and/or improve the educational provision offered to its students. 2

The steps being taken to improve the oversight of equality, diversity and inclusiveness (Expectation B4). The steps being taken to improve the consistency and quality of feedback on assessed work (Expectation B6). Theme: Digital Literacy The School has a strategic approach to incorporating support for digital literacy and e-learning. This approach is embedded institutionally as core parts of the School's Planning Cycle. Digital literacy is recognised and supported by senior managers and academics through the School's strategic focus and by its commitment to an effective digital infrastructure. The provider has a reliable IT infrastructure that supports teaching and learning. Students are supported in the development of digital literacy from pre-entry, where computing skills form part of the academic skills assessment, through all stages of their course. Effective use of the virtual learning environment (VLE) by staff is encouraged, supported and rewarded. Financial sustainability, management and governance There were no material issues identified at during the financial sustainability, management and governance check. Further explanation of the key findings can be found in the handbook available on the QAA webpage explaining Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers). About (the School) was established as a higher education institution in 2002. The School's mission is to 'Build rewarding careers for our students and our staff. Transform our students' lives through the provision of a high quality educational experience within an academic community, which promotes learning and personal development. Raise the aspirations of our students to become independent and critical learners, to achieve their full potential and to make valuable contributions to society. Raise the aspirations of our staff by developing, supporting and empowering them to deliver excellent teaching, research and scholarship, student support and service provision. Enhance our learning and working environment through the application of Servant Leadership principles, which promote kindness, ethical rigour, creativity and accountability'. The School is led by the Academic Principal, who is also the Managing Director. The Board of Directors comprises the Managing Director and two non-executive directors. The School occupies accommodation in central London and has a partnership with Birkbeck College, University of London to provide teaching facilities. All of the School's teaching takes place within Birkbeck College. Students have access to Birkbeck College's library (including borrowing rights), and computer facilities (including wireless access). The School delivers full-time UK higher education courses in business, computing and law at undergraduate and postgraduate level. Computing courses are in the process of being withdrawn. Accounting and finance courses are being introduced in 2015-16. The total number of full-time students for 2014-15 was 1,139, of which 944 were undertaking Higher National Diplomas (HNDs); the remaining 195 are enrolled on undergraduate degree courses. There are currently no part-time or postgraduate students. 3

Staffing during the same period consisted of a total 31.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) permanent academic staff (including sessional lecturers) This included 6.0 FTE academic leadership posts, 4.5 FTE senior academics (for example course leaders), 5.5 full-time or fractional lecturer posts and 15.0 FTE sessional (hourly paid) lecturers. Excluding sessional lecturers, the total permanent academic headcount is 36. The School's awarding body for degree courses is the University of Northampton. Pearson UK is the awarding organisation for non-degree courses. Since November 2011 undergraduate courses have been specifically designated by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for funding through the Student Loans Company (SLC). This enables UK and EU undergraduate students to apply for tuition fee loans and maintenance loans and grants through the SLC. The School is a subscriber institution of the Higher Education Academy, a member of UCAS and a member of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The School had a Review for Educational Oversight (REO) in May 2012. A subsequent annual monitoring visit took place in June 2014. The major change since the last review has been the change in awarding bodies, which was driven by the School's change in strategic direction. The new strategy requires a move away from HND,followed by top-up degrees towards the provision of full undergraduate degrees. In pursuance of this strategy the School changed its awarding bodies in 2014-15 from Cardiff Metropolitan University and the University of South Wales, to the University of Northampton. All of the programmes awarded by the former awarding bodies have been taught out and closed. Challenges faced by the School are both external and internal. Externally, the changing political context of higher education provision resulted in the School having to slow the implementation of its strategy for growth and development. Internally, the School has adopted a corporate culture of Servant Leadership, with the mission being to raise awareness of the need to serve and create a culture of integrity. The School has been engaged in embedding the principles of Servant Leadership, which are to: serve people, help people grow, exercise foresight and care about everyone the School touches. The annual monitoring visit in June 2014 concluded that the School was making commendable progress with the implementation of the REO action plan from 2012. This progress has continued, in that all recommendations had been appropriately addressed. The School has also continued to build on the good practice identified in the previous review report. 4

Explanation of the findings about London School of Business and Management Ltd This section explains the review findings in more detail. Terms that may be unfamiliar to some readers have been included in a brief glossary at the end of this report. A fuller glossary of terms is available on the QAA website, and formal definitions of certain terms may be found in the operational description and handbook for the review method, also on the QAA website. 5

1 The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies and/or other awarding organisations Expectation (A1): In order to secure threshold academic standards, degree-awarding bodies: a) ensure that the requirements of The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are met by: positioning their qualifications at the appropriate level of the relevant framework for higher education qualifications ensuring that programme learning outcomes align with the relevant qualification descriptor in the relevant framework for higher education qualifications naming qualifications in accordance with the titling conventions specified in the frameworks for higher education qualifications awarding qualifications to mark the achievement of positively defined programme learning outcomes b) consider and take account of QAA's guidance on qualification characteristics c) where they award UK credit, assign credit values and design programmes that align with the specifications of the relevant national credit framework d) consider and take account of relevant Subject Benchmark Statements. Quality Code, Chapter A1: UK and European Reference Points for Academic Standards Findings 1.1 The School's higher education provision maps against external benchmarks including The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ), and the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF), through the awarding body (University of Northampton) and awarding organisation (Pearson). Partnership agreements indicate that the awarding body and organisation are responsible for ensuring that qualifications align with national expectations. The School's Bachelor of Laws programme also conforms to the standards of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board, through the University of Northampton validation. 1.2 The School franchises programmes from the University of Northampton that are identical to those run at the University. It is the University's responsibility to ensure the positioning of programmes at the appropriate level of the FHEQ and alignment with relevant Subject Benchmark Statements. It is Pearson's responsibility to ensure that the School's HND provision meets national expectations. The School is responsible for maintaining the academic standards set by its partner institutions. These arrangements would allow the Expectation to be met. 1.3 Agreements between the School and its awarding body and organisation provided documentary evidence, which was corroborated during meetings with the Academic 6

Principal and Managing Director, and with senior staff. Meetings with teaching staff and students confirmed that knowledge of academic levels and qualification frameworks was widespread within the School. 1.4 The School relies on its awarding body and organisation to provide assurance that it meets the required academic standards. However, the School has developed its own procedures for validation to ensure that programmes address relevant national benchmarks, are at the appropriate level, and cover all learning outcomes. Programme and module specifications are detailed and informative, establishing the programme within the appropriate national qualification frameworks. 1.5 External examiners' reports confirm the maintenance of academic standards at appropriate qualification levels with alignment to Subject Benchmark Statements. The review team saw evidence that staff and students were confident in using benchmarks, qualification levels and frameworks. 1.6 The review team concludes that the Expectation is met and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 7

Expectation (A2.1): In order to secure their academic standards, degree-awarding bodies establish transparent and comprehensive academic frameworks and regulations to govern how they award academic credit and qualifications. Quality Code, Chapter A2: Degree-Awarding Bodies' Reference Points for Academic Standards Findings 1.7 The School is required to adhere to the academic governance arrangements and regulations of its awarding body and organisation, which are set out in the partnership agreements. The agreements indicate that the School has delegated responsibilities from its awarding body and organisation to undertake assessment activities that contribute to the award of academic credit and qualifications. In the case of Pearson programmes the School writes the assessments, whereas for University of Northampton programmes, the School delivers university assessments. The programme approval processes establish the academic frameworks and regulations within which the School operates. The School has its own academic regulations to supplement those of the awarding body and organisation. For example, regulations on submission of assessment and for mitigation arrangements apply as permitted under the Pearson agreement. 1.8 The School has academic governance arrangements and policies to enable it to meet the requirements of its partners. There is a formal committee structure comprising course committees, which report to the School Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (QAEC), and the Senior Management and Leadership Team. These in turn report to the Academic Committee, and ultimately to the Board of Directors. The School's arrangements are subject to regular scrutiny by the awarding body and organisation through the operation of assessment boards and the work of external examiners. 1.9 The design of these processes would allow the Expectation to be met. The documents outlining academic partnerships and arrangements are clearly written and accessible. Academic governance frameworks are comprehensive. 1.10 The review team scrutinised the partnership agreements, and the School committee terms of reference and minutes, to check the operation of academic governance arrangements. Programme specifications and assessment regulations confirmed the appropriate use of assessment frameworks. External examiners' reports and the School's implementation of actions arising from these reports were scrutinised. The team met staff to confirm their understanding of the academic framework and assessment regulations. External examiners' reports confirm that the School meets the requirements of its awarding body for the conduct of assessment and action in response to the recommendations of external examiners. The academic governance framework that the School has established is working effectively, with clear committee minutes demonstrating due consideration of issues and referral in line with their terms of reference. 1.11 The School includes external academic representatives on its Academic Board to provide external assurance of academic standards. The School further strengthened its use of external representation by including a representative from the University of Northampton on its QAEC from September 2015. In establishing a comprehensive academic governance framework with external representation the School has gone beyond the requirements of its awarding body and organisations as set out in the respective agreements. The robust operation of the framework provides strong assurance of the maintenance of academic standards. The review team considers the strong governance 8

framework that goes beyond the requirements placed on the School by its awarding body and organisation to be good practice. 1.12 The review team found that the comprehensive governance and robust management procedures at the School are effective. The review team concludes that the Expectation is met and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 9

Expectation (A2.2): Degree-awarding bodies maintain a definitive record of each programme and qualification that they approve (and of subsequent changes to it) which constitutes the reference point for delivery and assessment of the programme, its monitoring and review, and for the provision of records of study to students and alumni. Quality Code, Chapter A2: Degree-Awarding Bodies' Reference Points for Academic Standards Findings 1.13 Definitive documents for the University of Northampton programmes are the responsibility of the University, whereas the School has responsibility for producing contextualised programme specifications for Pearson programmes based on an agreed selection of units from the Pearson standard list. The School is responsible for making the elements of the definitive records available to students and ensuring they are used as a reference point for the delivery of courses, including assessment. This is achieved primarily by the provision of a student induction programme, course handbooks and a Student Guide. 1.14 The School has an internal process for evaluating proposed modifications to the validator's Designate Modules, beginning at course committee level and then progressing to the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (QAEC) (for minor modifications) or the Academic Committee (for major modifications). If internal approval is given, the University's approval of a change to the Award Map is sought. The course approval process makes provision for changes to be made in light of annual monitoring recommendations. The awarding body has assessed the working relationship with the School to be effective during its first year. This has provided a sufficient level of confidence for the awarding body to approve the delivery of additional degrees during 2015-16. The processes and procedures for the maintenance of definitive programme records would allow the Expectation to be met. 1.15 In reaching its conclusions about the Expectation the review team reviewed the partnership agreements, definitive course documents, course handbooks and minutes of relevant meetings. To evaluate the effectiveness of procedures, meetings were held with senior staff, teaching staff and students. 1.16 Course handbooks represent a key vehicle for articulating the awarding body and organisation's requirements. Course handbooks are developed by course leaders. Changes to course handbooks have formerly been approved by course leader team meetings, but from 2015-16 this responsibility will transfer to the QAEC. 1.17 The definitive course documents include information about intended learning outcomes, module specifications, credits, assessment details and information about monitoring and review. Students confirmed that they knew how to access information about their course should they need to. Staff the review team met all demonstrated a clear knowledge of the School's responsibilities. 1.18 The School demonstrates compliance with the academic framework and regulations of the degree-awarding body and organisation. However, the School goes beyond compliance, engaging as it does in continuous improvement, which prompts minor or major changes to the validated course. 1.19 The School ensures that the definitive course records are used to guide the delivery of programmes, and students are made aware of the content through appropriate 10

means. The review team concludes that the Expectation is met and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 11

Expectation (A3.1): Degree-awarding bodies establish and consistently implement processes for the approval of taught programmes and research degrees that ensure that academic standards are set at a level which meets the UK threshold standard for the qualification and are in accordance with their own academic frameworks and regulations. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes-Based Approach to Academic Awards Findings 1.20 The School operates programmes subject to franchise agreements with the University of Northampton and validation agreements with Pearson. These awarding partners are therefore responsible for course approval processes, and for confirming that programmes meet the qualification descriptors and threshold standards of the FHEQ and Subject Benchmark Statements. 1.21 The overall responsibility for programme and module approval rests with the awarding body or organisation, but the School has an overarching committee and policy framework, including its own internal validation process, that would allow the Expectation to be met. 1.22 The review team scrutinised course approval documentation and processes. It also looked at reports produced to review the validity of assessments and met staff operating at all levels of the School, including those involved with delivery, course design and review, and sought the views of current students. 1.23 Although the awarding body and organisation have the final authority, the School has its own course approval and modification procedures. These are overseen by the Academic Committee, which may give final approval or establish a separate course approval panel to report back with recommendations. The detailed internal process includes consideration of academic themes, marketing and resources. 1.24 Subject to awarding body and organisation approval, proposed modifications are recorded on a template requiring a rationale, clarification as to the category of modification (major/minor) and consideration of additional resource requirements. 1.25 The review team concludes that the Expectation is met and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 12

Expectation (A3.2): Degree-awarding bodies ensure that credit and qualifications are awarded only where: the achievement of relevant learning outcomes (module learning outcomes in the case of credit and programme outcomes in the case of qualifications) has been demonstrated through assessment both UK threshold standards and their own academic standards have been satisfied. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes-Based Approach to Academic Awards Findings 1.26 Given that School provision is approved by either the University of Northampton or Pearson, responsibility for assessments and the award of credit varies accordingly. The School's principles of assessment are contained in the Teaching, Learning, Assessment and Research Strategy, and Assessment Methodology and Procedures Policy, and these guide staff in the operation of assessment processes. The awarding body or organisation ensure that student achievement of learning outcomes receives academic credit through moderation, external examination and the operation of boards of examiners. Through its articulation of these processes the School ensures that credit and qualifications are only awarded where the achievement of relevant learning outcomes has been demonstrated through assessment and that UK threshold standards are maintained. 1.27 In the case of University of Northampton degree courses the assessment instrument is determined by the University. In these instances, the School is responsible for first marking only (with the validator providing moderation of this marking). In the case of Pearson HNDs, the School has responsibility for selecting the assessment instruments and creating and marking assessment briefs. The School is committed to supporting students with learning difficulties and to making reasonable adjustments where appropriate, although this provision is not documented in the Assessment Methodology and Procedures Policy. 1.28 The design of the policy and procedures for assessment would allow the Expectation to be met. 1.29 The review team tested the application of assessment procedures by scrutinising a range of external examiner reports, assessment documents and policies, and student feedback. The team also met students and staff involved in assessment practice. 1.30 The School aims to ensure that students are made aware of what constitutes good academic practice, with particular attention given to plagiarism and its avoidance with the support of plagiarism-detection software. 1.31 The School's feedback and review mechanisms are sufficiently robust to enable it to respond promptly to issues that may be raised about assessment, as evidenced by the School's comprehensive response to a Pearson Standards Verifier's issues about marking standardisation. This resulted in a significant programme of assessment development and good practice, evidencing that the School's processes are resilient and responsive. 1.32 External examiners confirm that credit is awarded for the achievement of learning outcomes in line with UK and awarding body standards. 1.33 Students confirmed that tutors made them aware of learning outcomes and assessment criteria, and that these are clearly set out in the course handbooks. They also 13

noted that they are able to provide feedback on modules through student module evaluation questionnaires. Staff gave examples of students who had been supported through reasonable adjustments, and described the process for internal verification of assignments and marking standardisation. 1.34 The review team concludes that the Expectation is met and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 14

Expectation (A3.3): Degree-awarding bodies ensure that processes for the monitoring and review of programmes are implemented which explicitly address whether the UK threshold academic standards are achieved and whether the academic standards required by the individual degree-awarding body are being maintained. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes-Based Approach to Academic Awards Findings 1.35 The School follows the processes for monitoring and review established by its awarding body and organisation. Pearson programmes are reviewed by the external Standards Verifier. The School is responsible for providing monitoring and review information to enable the University of Northampton partnership manager to produce an annual report. This in turn feeds into the University of Northampton's rolling action plan meeting. However, the School has recently developed its own annual monitoring process based on a template, which is completed by each course team. This culminates in a School overview Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report (AMER), which applies to all programmes. 1.36 The School's process for monitoring and review of programmes would allow the Expectation to be met. 1.37 The review team considered the policy for annual monitoring, read examples of AMERs, as well as the School overview AMER, and explored these further with staff and students. 1.38 The AMER facilitates an integrative approach to planning and improvement in that it is an essential part of the School's Corporate Governance Framework and therefore has the potential to impact on both academic and corporate planning decisions. Staff confirmed that the School takes responsibility for maintaining strategic oversight of the processes for, and outcomes of, course monitoring. The AMER system informs departmental business and improvement planning, staff appraisal and staff development. It is articulated through the School's committee structure, with the overview AMER being received by the Senior Management and Leadership Team. 1.39 The review team concludes that the Expectation is met and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 15

Expectation (A3.4): In order to be transparent and publicly accountable, degree-awarding bodies use external and independent expertise at key stages of setting and maintaining academic standards to advise on whether: UK threshold academic standards are set, delivered and achieved the academic standards of the degree-awarding body are appropriately set and maintained. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes-Based Approach to Academic Awards Findings 1.40 The responsibility for engaging external and independent expertise primarily lies with the awarding body and organisation, who engage external members to contribute to validation processes and appoint external examiners to oversee the maintenance of their academic standards. The School has internal processes for working with external examiners and using their reports in its annual review, and in monitoring the actions arising from external examiner reports. 1.41 The School recognises the value of external expertise in informing its activities and maintaining academic standards. Membership of the Academic Committee includes two external academic experts, and a representative from the awarding body sits on the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (QAEC). Through these processes the School assures that academic standards and academic quality are consistent with national standards and frameworks. 1.42 The School engages with professional bodies when designing programmes and running programmes with professional accreditation. It does not currently engage with local employer groups. 1.43 External expertise informs academic management. Processes for the validation of programmes include external and independent expertise. The external examiner system provides external scrutiny of the award of credit and the academic standards of awards. The School's processes for monitoring of actions arising from external examiners' reports are effective. These arrangements allow the Expectation to be met. 1.44 Scrutiny of the validation records, external examiners' reports, annual monitoring reports and committee minutes provided documentary evidence to test the Expectation. In meetings with senior staff and teaching staff the review team also discussed the involvement of independent external expertise and actions taken in response to external examiners' reports. 1.45 External examiners' reports confirm that programmes meet the required academic standards at the appropriate qualification levels. The external examiners' reports are being used systematically in annual review and monitoring processes, with action plans created by course teams considered and monitored through the committee system. The School's action in response to the external examiners' report for the Pearson HND in Business in 2014 illustrates the effectiveness of the process. 1.46 The School's engagement with external expertise in academic management through membership of the Academic Committee and the QAEC demonstrates its commitment to maintaining academic standards. The School engages with external bodies such as the Solicitors' Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board to assure the standards of its awards receiving external accreditation. 16

1.47 Overall, the review team found that the School uses independent and external expertise in the maintenance of academic standards. The review team concludes that the Expectation is met and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 17

The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies and/or other awarding organisations: Summary of findings 1.48 In reaching its judgement the review team matched its findings against the criteria specified in Annex 2 of the published handbook. 1.49 All of the Expectations for this judgement area were met and the associated levels of risk were low. In all aspects of this judgement area the School complies with the requirements of its degree-awarding body and awarding organisation. There are no recommendations for this judgement area. An example of good practice is identified. 1.50 The review team concludes that the maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding body and/or other awarding organisations at the School meets UK expectations. 18

2 Judgement: The quality of student learning opportunities Expectation (B1): Higher education providers, in discharging their responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, operate effective processes for the design, development and approval of programmes. Quality Code, Chapter B1: Programme Design, Development and Approval Findings 2.1 For Pearson qualifications, programme design, assessment strategy and evaluation are the responsibility of the School. For University of Northampton qualifications, the University is responsible for the design, approval and evaluation of the franchised programmes delivered by the School. The addition of more courses to the portfolio is agreed through a formal approval event convened by the University. This is preceded by the School's own internal approval process for evaluating the market and resource implications of potential programmes. Approval documents are presented to the Academic Committee for agreement prior to seeking external validation. The School is in the process of replacing its HNDs with degree courses. The University of Northampton has formally agreed that the School can develop its own provision that will be validated by the University. 2.2 The course approval and modification process outlines the role of the committee structures in designing new provision, sets out the approval criteria and provides templates for course approval, and major changes to a course and minor changes. The School provided an example of the internal course approval process for BA Accounting and Finance, evidencing how the outcomes of the meeting were received at the Academic Committee and how the course was subsequently successfully approved by the University of Northampton (subject to two conditions). It also provided an example of a minor course modification and how this was reported to the Senior Management and Leadership Team, prior to the recent establishment of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee, which is now responsible for minor modifications. 2.3 Externality is achieved through the presence of external members on the Academic Committee and through consultation with employers; professional, statutory and regulatory bodies; and the awarding university. Resource planning for new and existing courses is managed through the School's Annual Planning Cycle and annual resource planning cycle. This is finalised by the end of January in readiness for the next academic year. 2.4 The School manages the design and approval of programmes in accordance with partnership agreements with the University of Northampton and Pearson. Quality processes effectively meet the requirements of the awarding body and organisation, and are aligned with Chapter B1: Programme Design, Development and Approval. This would allow the Expectation to be met. 2.5 The review team considered the relevant sections of the self-evaluation document, submitted for this report, and course approval documentation. It also discussed the process with staff and students. 2.6 Staff have a strong awareness of the approval process, including Subject Benchmark Statements and the FHEQ, and the process is implemented effectively. 19

The School takes the outcomes seriously and responds to conditions and recommendations set by the University of Northampton. 2.7 The student voice is taken into account when designing new programmes. For example, students described how they completed a two-page questionnaire about the proposed new BA (Hons) Business Management course. Feedback has led to a change of proposed course title, a commitment to explore work placements and to seek Chartered Management Institute accreditation. 2.8 Students are also consulted about changes to existing provision. This is achieved partly through student representation on key academic committees, for example the Academic Committee, and partly through course committee representation. Students confirmed that a change required by the University of Northampton involving the replacement of a module was communicated through induction and the course handbook, and discussed at course committee and the Staff Student Consultation Committee. 2.9 There is a strategy for managing courses that are to be withdrawn, for example the HND Computing. This is based on the principle that there will be no change to teaching approach and support. 2.10 The review team concludes that the Expectation is met and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 20

Expectation (B2): Recruitment, selection and admission policies and procedures adhere to the principles of fair admission. They are transparent, reliable, valid, inclusive and underpinned by appropriate organisational structures and processes. They support higher education providers in the selection of students who are able to complete their programme. Quality Code, Chapter B2: Recruitment, Selection and Admission to Higher Education Findings 2.11 The School is responsible for the recruitment of its students for both Pearson and University of Northampton awards, and although it has to apply the admissions criteria of its academic partners, it can nevertheless articulate its own policy. This has been informed by Supporting Professionalism in Admissions principles, and is subject to an annual review. The policy is coherently articulated and is conducive to promoting equality, diversity and fairness. The School provides fair access to applicants from non-traditional routes, which is in accordance with its commitment to widening participation. There is adequate support for disabled students, for example supporting students in making Disabled Students' Allowance applications. There is appropriate English language testing for international students and these along with additional requirements are clearly articulated. The design of these processes would allow the Expectation to be met. 2.12 The review team tested the Expectation by examining the School's policies and procedures, and reading the information provided to students at the pre-admissions stage. The implementation of procedures was evaluated through meetings with staff from the School and with students. 2.13 The School's Business and Improvement Plan includes improving student recruitment and admissions, stressing the increase of student numbers, brand strengthening and improvement of the experience of mature learners. Applications are judged on their academic merit and on the applicant's potential ability to meet the requirements of the course. The School has additional options for students who may not meet fully the criteria with respect to certificated learning. This includes a skills assessment and also an interview, which intends to test and ensure students' capability of successfully completing the programme. Applicants with relevant prior experiential learning experience have, since 2014-15, been considered on the basis of a combined score from skills-based assessment and interview. The School recently (in 2014-15) separated recruitment activities from the admissions function. The complaints process, which prompts a response from the Academic Registrar within 21 days, is made accessible to applicants. Support is provided through the recruitment process by student ambassadors. 2.14 The University's policies and procedures for the admission of students are clear and explicit to applicants, and fairly and consistently applied. In line with its widening participation commitment, the School admits a large number of students through Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning. For example, 153 out of 217 HND students were admitted in 2014-15 without level 3 qualifications. However, despite adopting a rigorous approach to screening the potential of applicants from non-traditional backgrounds, by October 2015 only 52 per cent of this HND Business cohort had progressed to the next level. The figure was, however, expected to improve once resit results were available. A positive measure the School piloted with the March 2015 cohort has since been introduced to mitigate the above. This is the establishment of a compulsory pre-sessional academic skills programme for HND students who lack a level 3 qualification. Students whose English language skills are poor are required to contact the Centre for Academic Support and Enhancement (CASE) by the fourth week of their course and are monitored by the director of 21

CASE. Retention and progression rates on some courses, for example HND Computing, are low, although there is no evidence that suggests this is linked to the admissions process. 2.15 The review team found that the School's recruitment, selection and admissions process works effectively in practice. The School promotes its widening participation agenda by providing applicants from diverse backgrounds and non-traditional routes fair access to its programmes. The review team concludes that the Expectation is met and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 22

Expectation (B3): Higher education providers, working with their staff, students and other stakeholders, articulate and systematically review and enhance the provision of learning opportunities and teaching practices, so that every student is enabled to develop as an independent learner, study their chosen subject(s) in depth and enhance their capacity for analytical, critical and creative thinking. Quality Code, Chapter B3: Learning and Teaching Findings 2.16 The School mission, vision and values, and corporate goals - to provide students with a transformational and high quality educational experience; to foster independent and critical learning; and to empower staff to achieve excellence in teaching, research and scholarship - establish a clear strategic direction for teaching and learning. The Academic Strategy provides the overall framework for teaching and learning within the School, with clear goals linked to the Quality Code and FHEQ. A draft Teaching, Learning, Assessment and Research Strategy provides detail to the School approach. Responsibility for the policy rests with the Senior Management and Leadership Team, and Senior Academic Leadership Team. This policy includes the School's approach to staff development, research and scholarship, resources, progression and working in partnership with students. The policy sets clear and measurable targets for achievement of the goals. The e-learning Strategy complements the Teaching, Learning, Assessment and Research Strategy, with the Servant Leadership initiative providing an overarching philosophy for enhancement of the student teaching and learning experience. 2.17 Good practice in learning and teaching is identified in teaching observations and disseminated via the Teaching and Learning Forum. School targets include having all members of teaching staff as members of the Higher Education Academy to the minimum level of Fellow. The School Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) supports teaching staff in their development. An annual staff development conference provides a focus for staff development initiatives, this year focused on Servant Leadership. The School aims to support research and scholarship by staff and students to underpin excellence in teaching and high student achievement. A programme of skills development sessions and financial allocations to staff for external development complete the comprehensive approach to supporting teaching and learning. 2.18 Questionnaires, Student and Staff Consultative Committee meetings, and course committees allow the articulation of student views on their teaching experience. Students can support each other's learning though the Peer Assisted Learning Scheme, introduced in September 2015. 2.19 The School reviews the provision of learning opportunities and teaching practices systematically and disseminates documentation to staff, students and other stakeholders. These processes would allow the Expectation to be met. 2.20 Meetings held with senior staff, students and teaching staff confirmed the implementation of the processes outlined in the documentation. The review team examined records of teaching observations, records of annual conferences and a wide range of policy documents, plans and committee minutes. 2.21 The Teaching, Learning, Assessment and Research Strategy is thorough, detailed and firmly linked to the School mission, values and overall strategy. The principles of Servant Leadership provide an enhancement theme, which particularly supports the achievement of this Expectation. The annual conference provides a focus for staff 23

development, and in particular the dissemination and implementation of the Servant Leadership initiative. The annual conference provides relevant and ongoing continuing professional development, with the inclusion of student poster sessions in the 2015 conference providing a valuable opportunity for students and staff to share in mutual development. Generous funding underpins the School approach to staff development, with funding at institutional, divisional and individual level, including funds for team coherence as well as academic, pedagogical and skills development. 2.22 A School priority for staff development includes a target for the achievement of UK Professional Standards Framework fellowships for all teaching staff through membership of the Higher Education Academy. In addition, staff attend workshops to maintain their knowledge of School policies and processes, and of e-learning resources and methods. Monitoring of staff development is thorough and linked to personal development. 2.23 Peer and managed observation processes for observing teaching are comprehensive. Records of teaching observations are detailed and supportive. The annual evaluation of peer observations provides examples for sharing good practice, and enhancing collegiate support and professional engagement. The managed observation scheme is clear and the revised process shows that all observers undertake training in order to standardise observations. Management observers of teaching provided the review team with an example of how the School had effectively supported underperformance by a member of the teaching staff, an issue identified by the Student Academic Representative process. 2.24 The CETL supports and enhances teaching. It supports staff in their applications to the Higher Education Academy. Through the Teaching and Learning Forum it hosts discussions and improvements, for example leading to more focused examination of the respective functions of lecture and seminar activities. The CETL is also central to the implementation of the Servant Leadership initiative through teaching and learning, including its ethical dimension. 2.25 The e-learning Strategy is detailed and comprehensive based on the premise that learning is a priority and not technology. One of the three operational domains of the policy is 'teaching philosophy and pedagogy' providing a clear focus for improving teaching through e-learning. The e-learning Strategy supports staff to improve their teaching and enhance student learning through a broad range of staff development sessions and guides. 2.26 The School reviews the effectiveness of its procedures relating to teaching and learning, for example the Academic Committee agreed to improvements in the peer observation process to more clearly identify development issues and to provide an overview of outcomes for the Teaching and Learning Forum. 2.27 A range of informal meetings support the formal structures, allowing the development of ideas and the sharing of good practice. The Teaching and Learning Forum and course leader meetings are informal and not minuted in order to maintain the free interaction of ideas. Although forming part of the informal structure, the School minutes the meetings of the e-learning group because it establishes actions requiring communication and monitoring. 2.28 The review team considers the clear strategy and extensive support for improving teaching and learning to be good practice. 2.29 School objectives include developing students as independent learners through progression from a taught approach to independent learning. The implementation and benefit of this approach is confirmed by students. 24